Keystone line delay shows feds have lost their marbles

While there are countless examples of its lunacy, the recent decision to delay a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline -- until after next year's election, of course -- is atop the pile.

Here we sit, with a shot-out economy, a hunger for affordable energy, debt up to our ears and a misdirected energy policy apparently based on hallucinogens.

Despite that, the State Department, worried less about America's security than how approving the pipeline will look to the climate-change crowd, is stalling the proposed 1,660-mile line from Alberta's Athabasca Oil Sands to Port Arthur and Houston, Texas.

Why? Environmentalists who would rather we spent time and treasure trying to harness energy from fluttering butterfly wings as part of their clean-energy fantasy detest the very notion of carbon-intensive development of the heavy, black oil sands. It's icky, they say, and causes greenhouse gases. For Obama, our national security, energy independence, jobs and reliance on friends rather than foes to supply our energy needs take a backseat to appeasing the enviros.

The Keystone XL delay is payment in advance, thank you, for votes next year. None of that is good: This is an oil-fired nation. No, we should not abandon clean-energy research but nothing is going to change immediately. What do we do until new technology is developed? You can stuff only so many bugs into a gas tank.

"People don't like mining, people don't like extraction, but it is our reality," Sen. Lisa Murkowski told the Canadian American Business Council last month. "So let's figure out how we do it safely, how we do it responsibly, and let's work on perfecting that. We're going to need to continue to dig holes. It's just what has to happen."

Murkowski, the Vancouver Observer reported, said she was stunned by the administration's "troubling and unprecedented" delay; that it sends a message to the world that "the United States lacks a clear energy policy and is willing to turn its back on its neighbor."

Murkowski correctly observed there is no better, no safer energy partner for the U.S. than Canada:

"You're not putting crude in a vessel and sending it across thousands of miles of water; you're putting it in a pipeline, the safest way to transport ... If we're not going to produce (oil) here, I want to know that we're getting it from someone who likes us, who we like, and who has high environmental standards and is going to be there for the long haul with us.''

Who wins if the $7 billion project shuts down? China. At stake? More than 140,000 jobs and billions of dollars. Canada will not shut down oil sands development if the U.S. chokes on the pipeline.

The fight has been a long time coming. Calgary-based TransCanada Corp., of Alaska Gasline Inducement Act fame, in 2008 proposed the Keystone XL pipeline extension to increase its Keystone pipeline capacity to 1.1 million barrels a day. TransCanada's Keystone line now carries crude from Canada to Cushing, Okla., America's oil tank farm, and Midwest refineries.

The plan has drawn fire since Day One, becoming the centerpiece in the debate over fossil fuels vs. renewable energy. It faced one hurdle after another, from unfriendly congressmen to green zealots to the EPA.

The latest beef involves the line's route through Nebraska's Sandhills wetlands.

Environmentalists worried it might endanger the vast Ogallala aquifer, which underlies eight states and supplies drinking water to the middle third of the nation. Nebraska and TransCanada say they may be able to agree on a new route in six to nine months, but the State Department, which earlier concluded it was unlikely the line would threaten the Sandhills, says studying new routes will delay a permit by 12 to 18 months -- no matter any agreement between TransCanada and Nebraska.

With soaring gasoline prices and an economy starved for affordable energy, you would think the last thing the Obama administration would do is get in the way of this pipeline; that it would abdicate its responsibility to Americans for votes and infuriate our closest ally. Politics is one thing; gross dereliction of duty at the expense of national security is another.

But maybe Obama has another plan for energy. Wait, I think I hear butterfly wings.

Paul Jenkins is editor of the AnchorageDailyPlanet.com.